-Purpose: A draft guidance on tape stripping for assessing the bioavailability/bioequivalence of topical formulations was issued by the United States Food and Drug Administration in 1998 but has since been withdrawn. This was due to problems associated with the method and also inconsistencies and variability in the resulting data. The purpose of this study was to re-visit the tape stripping technique, incorporate refinements to reduce variability and validate the method using bioequivalence data obtained from the assessment of a topical corticosteroid cream containing 0.05% clobetasol propionate using the human skin blanching assay. Methods: A pilot tape stripping study was conducted to establish the variability of the formulations.The bioequivalence of two different commercially available clobetasol propionate cream formulations and a clobetasol propionate ointment formulation were subsequently investigated using the tape stripping method. Results: The data from the pilot tape stripping study correlated well with data from the human skin blanching assay. A subsequent pivotal tape stripping study confirmed bioequivalence between the two cream formulations whereas bio-inequivalence was demonstrated between the cream and ointment formulations. Conclusions: These studies show that the results from tape stripping concur with data from the human skin blanching assay and demonstrate the potential of a well-controlled tape stripping study as an option for the assessment of bioequivalence of topical corticosteroid formulations. _______________________________________________________________________________________

Dermal microdialysis was used to assess the bioavailability of a topical corticosteroid, clobetasol propionate, following application onto the skin of human subjects. The penetration of clobetasol propionate from a 4% m/v ethanolic solution applied onto 4 sites on one forearm of healthy human volunteers was studied. A lipid emulsion, Intralipid®, was used as the perfusate and linear microdialysis probes with a 2-kDa cutoff were inserted intradermally at the designated sites. The results indicated that Intralipid could be used as a suitable perfusate for in vivo microdialysis of this lipophilic drug of interest. Furthermore, the study clearly demonstrated the application of dermal microdialysis as a valuable tool to assess the bioavailability/bioequivalence of clobetasol propionate penetration into the skin following topical application.

-PURPOSE. The assessment of the degree of skin blanching following the application of a formulation containing a topical corticosteroid has been established as a surrogate method for the determination of bioequivalence. In this study, both visual and chromametric assessments have been carried out on two topical creams containing clobetasol propionate (0.05%) and the results from both methods are compared. METHODS. Human subjects (volunteers) were screened using a cream containing 0.05% clobetasol propionate, in order to identify appropriate subjects for inclusion in the study. The study was implemented according to the FDA guidance using both visual and chromameter assessment techniques. Blanching responses were assessed visually by three trained, independent observers and instrumentally using a Chromameter ® . An ED 50 of 36 min was used as the dose duration based upon data previously obtained from a pilot study using the same topical corticosteroid reference product. A visual rating scale of 0-4 and the a-scale readings from the chromameter were used. RESULTS. The visual and chromameter blanching profiles showed similar blanching responses with good correspondence. The 90% confidence intervals for the data from both methods were calculated using Locke's method. When only the data obtained from 23 subjects who were identified as "detectors" (as per FDA guidance) were used, the products fell within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80-125% using the visual assessment method (99.3-111.6%) whereas the data using a chromameter (86.5-129.3%) were just outside the acceptance limits. However, when all subjects (n=34) were included in the calculations, both the visual (97.9-109.2) and chromameter (90.2-120.7) data fell within the bioequivalence acceptance range. CONCLUSIONS. Whereas visual data indicated bioequivalence using either data from "detectors" or data from all subjects, the chromameter data from "detectors" only indicated bioinequivalence but inclusion of all subject data fell within the acceptance range to be declared bioequivalent.

No abstract